Ill.1.
The first Earth satellite (USSR, 1957)
Earth's first cosmonaut (USSR, 1961)
October 4, 1957 The Soviet Union launched the world's first artificial satellite Earth and thus opened the space age in the history of mankind (ill. 1). The Americans took this event seriously.
“The first Soviet Sputnik shook millions of Americans to their core as it challenged their confidence in the overall superiority of the United States for the first time. The technical victory of Soviet scientists led the United States to political defeat,” recalled one of the editors of the New York Times.
“The country that leads in space will be judged as the most advanced technologically, with the best education and the best performance of the political and economic system as a whole,” wrote the New York Herald Tribune.
“We unreservedly condemn President Eisenhower for his failure to exploit the enormous technical capabilities of the country, as a result of which the Soviet Union was able to launch its satellite before the United States,” ex-President Truman shouted, his glasses flashing.
“Sputnik revealed the psychological vulnerability of our ideas,” admitted then US President D. Eisenhower.
“The dogma of the technical superiority of the United States has collapsed,” wrote the French Paris-Match. (Links to sources of information are indicated in square brackets).
April 12, 1961 Yuri Gagarin's historic flight took place (ill. 1). In the Soviet Union, a new victory in space caused a huge patriotic upsurge (Fig. 2).
Ill.2. Joy of Russia
A) Employees of the Moscow telegraph were among the first to learn about Gagarin’s flight,
b) demonstration in honor new victory in space, V) boy with a leaflet about Gagarin
“From a propaganda point of view, the first man in space is worth perhaps more than 100 divisions or a dozen intercontinental missiles ready to take off at the first order... State Department officials fear the international consequences of Gagarin’s flight,” wrote the New York Herald Tribune and the Wall Street Journal "" .
In one of his campaign speeches, Senator D. F. Kennedy, who soon after became President of the United States, said: “The people of the world witnessed the first penetration of space by the Soviet Union. His satellites were the first to fly around the Moon and around the Sun. They concluded that the Soviet Union was going uphill, while we were marking time. I think it's time for us to change this opinion."
American counteroffensive
Ill.3. May 25, 1961: US President Kennedy announces that Americans will be the first on the moon.
By tradition, only once a year (usually in January) the President addresses Congress with a “State of the Union” message, that is, with a political report and program for future actions. But on May 25, 1961, shortly after Gagarin's flight, President Kennedy broke this tradition and delivered his second State of the Union address. It was dedicated to rivalry in space (ill. 3). Kennedy announced that by the end of the 60s the United States would land a man on the Moon.
If we want to win the battle that is unfolding throughout the world between the two systems, if we want to win the battle for the minds of people, then ... we cannot afford to allow the Soviet Union to occupy a leading position in space "
A year later, in September 1962, speaking to a large audience gathered at Rice University Stadium, Kennedy quite succinctly outlined the importance that the United States attaches to winning the competition for the Moon: “We must be leaders [in space exploration] because that the eyes of the world are now directed into space, to the Moon and more distant planets, and we have sworn that we will not have to see the enemy’s flag of conquest on the Moon, [there will be] a banner of freedom and peace.” As you can see, the terminology is almost military.
The lunar race has begun - a fierce rivalry between the USA and the USSR to be the first to send a man to the moon. Both sides attached great importance to achieving victory in this competition “...The competition for the Moon was a kind of war. “For the loser, death and damnation await,” the New York Times wrote at the time. It was a struggle between two systems of power, which the Americans were obliged to win. By any means [f1].”
The USSR failed to send a man to the Moon, and the United States reported landing its astronauts on the Moon six times between 1969 and 1972.
NASA brief information about flights to the Moon
Manned flights to the Moon were carried out as part of the Apollo program, which cost about $25 billion and was carried out under the leadership of NASA ( N national A eranautics and S pace A dministration - NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration). Below, instead of the name "Apollo", the abbreviation "A" is often used. The giant 110-meter Saturn 5 rocket launched a ship into orbit around the Moon (Fig. 4) with a total mass of about 45 tons and a crew of 3 people.
Ill.4. Apollo spacecraft diagram:
1, 2 – lunar module, consisting of landing stage 1 and take-off stage 2;
3, 4 – the command and service module, which remains to wait for the astronauts in lunar orbit, consists of command module 3 and service module 4.
Then the lunar module was separated from the ship ( 1, 2 ) with two astronauts, who landed on the Moon. The command and service module remained in orbit with one astronaut on board ( 3, 4 ) . After being on the Moon, astronauts in the ascent stage 2 returned to lunar orbit, transferred to the command and service module and returned to Earth in it.
Here brief information NASA about all manned Apollo flights.
A-7. October 11-21.1968. The first manned flight of the Apollo spacecraft in low-Earth orbit. The A-7 was launched into low-Earth orbit by the Saturn-1B rocket, and subsequent ships were launched into orbit by the Saturn-5 rocket.
A-8, December 21-27. 1968. First manned flight around the Moon.
A-9, March 3-13.1969. The first manned flight in the lunar module in low-Earth orbit.
A-10, May 18-26.1969. The first manned flight in a lunar module around the Moon.
A-11, July 16-24.1969. First landing on the moon. Stay on the Moon – 21 hours / of which – 2.5 hours outside the module. 20 kg of lunar soil were delivered to Earth.
A-12, November 14-24.1969. Second landing. 31 hours / 7.5 hours, 34 kg of soil.
A-13, April 11-17. 1970. Ship accident. There was no landing. The astronauts returned safely.
Interview with A.I. Popova for Russia Today Arabic (1st broadcast)
Leading: Today our guest is Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Alexander Popov. July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 lunar module crew of two astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin landed on the natural satellite of our planet. During the 13-year American Apollo lunar program, six successful landings on the Moon were made. The astronauts planted the US flag, collected about 20 kilograms of lunar soil samples and placed scientific instruments on the lunar surface. Since the first landing, official newspapers, in particular the New York Times, have not tired of talking about American superiority in space. However, many doubts have arisen around manned lunar missions.
One of the first fundamental works about this, entitled “We have never been to the Moon,” was published in 1976 by its author Bill Kaysing. The book, for the first time, concentrated a huge number of facts that cast doubt on manned flights to the Moon. And recently, an event occurred that takes such information beyond the scope of “conspiracy theory.” Current advisor to US President Donald Trump on science and technology David Gelernter, a professor at Yale University, publicly denied even the very possibility that Americans were on the Moon. He said the following: " How can we organize a mission to Mars by the mid-2030s if we haven't even been to the Moon? ... The Apollo lunar landing is a hoax of human history. global warming. ... If NASA scientists in 2012 claim that they still do not know how to properly protect spaceship from radiation in Van Allen belt, why the hell are we supposed to believe that astronauts penetrated through it wearing spacesuits made of “aluminum foil”? And during the peak solar activity? The answer is very simple, it never happened».
David Gelernter
Also, the interview with the navigation systems operator of the Apollo 13 spacecraft is of interest. Raymond Teague. In conversation with a TV presenter Alex Jones(Alex Jones) he said the following: " Many people have asked me this before. Did we really go to the moon? And I answered that “yes, I think we flew. But I can't be absolutely sure. And the reason for this is what I saw when I was working on the project. If you compare all this, then you would be absolutely sure that we flew, but at the same time, like me, you might think that we might not have flown" Thus, for the first time, at such a high political and technical level, Americans questioned their own flights to the Moon.
In this regard, we considered it appropriate to address this topic and talk with one of the most famous people in the field of exposing the American “lunar conspiracy”, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, author of numerous articles and publications on the topic of space and space programs, Alexander Popov.
Presenter: Alexander Ivanovich, hello,
A.I. Popov: Hello.
Presenter: Thank you for finding time for us and preparing so many interesting materials on which we will talk with you.
A.I. Popov: And thank you for the invitation.
Host: The first question I would like to ask before we start going through all these interesting files one by one is the following. There are quite a lot of people in America who have researched the issue of flights to the Moon. They called this fact of history “ moon scam" How do you personally soviet man, Russian citizen today, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, why did you also start studying this issue? And you spent so many years and effort on this?
A.I. Popov: I think that my main driving feeling was a feeling of national resentment, infringed national pride. But besides this, all scientists still have the habit of understanding everything to the end. I must say that at one time, when flights to the Moon began, I was a graduate of the institute, a young specialist. And I graduated from one of the best universities educational institutions- Moscow Engineering Physics Institute.
Host: And one of the most secret in the Soviet Union.
A.I. Popov: Yes, and at the same time one of the most secret. I must say that at the end of the 60s, my peers and I, and almost all the people in the USSR, believed in these flights. And I will say that not just for one year, but for almost twenty years after that, I believed that the Americans flew to the Moon. But gradually this faith began to weaken. I began to read publications of people who wrote that many facts and evidence about flights to the Moon very far from the truth, there are doubts and contradictions.
Host: In America, skeptical articles appeared three months after the first flight.
A.I. Popov: Yes, yes.
Host: For example, “ New York Times", one of the central newspapers, citing an anonymous source from NASA, published an article stating that in fact the Americans did not fly to the Moon.
A.I. Popov: This is logical, because the Americans knew more about themselves.
Host: Let's then consider the opinion about this in our country. Literally before recording the program with you, I had a conversation with the academician Eric Galimov, scientific director of the Institute of Geochemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences, one of the most famous scientists in Russia today.
A.I. Popov: Yes, I know him.
Host: When I asked him: “Were the Americans on the Moon?”, he answered me like this: “When my friends and I were children, we would dive under the water on a dare to touch the bottom. The main evidence that one of us did this was a handful of silt from the bottom of the river. If you said that you dived to the bottom, prove it - and show a handful of silt.” Therefore, as Academician Galimov told me, the main evidence that the Americans were on the Moon is the lunar soil they brought from there. This evidence alone can destroy all sorts of conspiracy theories that they weren’t there. How will you respond to this? After all, Academician Galimov himself, personally studied the lunar soil, and knows what he is talking about?
A.I. Popov: Yes, I know the opinion of this respected man. But comparing lunar soil to a handful of silt is not appropriate here.
Host: Why?
A.I. Popov: The fact is that, according to the state of technology of those years, a handful of lunar soil, or sand, or, as it is scientifically called, regolith, could be delivered by machine guns. Which they did regularly. For example, Soviet spacecraft brought soil from the Moon three times. These handfuls were a hundred grams each. But no one says that Russian cosmonauts were on the Moon? That's all. And I'll tell you this. Wherever these handfuls of lunar soil come from, which the respected academician speaks about, no matter what you tell me, a representative of the exact sciences, I will answer you one thing: “Please, Americans, show me a few large stones, preferably from solid lunar rock.”
Host: Americans allegedly 380 kilograms brought.
A.I. Popov: “Allegedly” is not proof for science.
Host: By the way, it must be said here that America gave practically nothing to the Soviet Union.
A.I. Popov: Yes, that's true.
Presenter: They gave me sand, about 30 grams that's all. The Americans could hand over the moon rocks to the international scientific community, which would collectively study them and rule out deception?
A.I. Popov: Yes.
Host: Collectively, as many scientists do when making discoveries, by the way.
A.I. Popov: Yes, yes. And our scientists had to participate in such a study. I can give you an example. For example, if a particle is discovered in nuclear physics, then priority goes to those scientists who did it. But! This particle is only considered discovered when two independent laboratories have tested the discovery and confirmed its existence.
Host: But didn’t independent laboratories from Canada and Australia confirm the authenticity of the lunar soil?
A.I. Popov: You should always take research from ideological opponents. But these countries are still connected with the United States by certain interests.
Host: I don’t want to go deeper into this topic now. But I’ll add to this question about interests different countries, history, again, from an academician Erica Galimova. He told how the Moscow authorities did not allow him to accept a gift of lunar soil from his Western colleagues. In my opinion, this is absurd and nonsense. Why was the Soviet Union interested in not receiving moon rocks for study? Perhaps, relying on this and other oddities, you came to opposite conclusions about flights to the Moon? For example, you think that by 1969 they simply did not have a rocket to do this. This means there was no flight.
A.I. Popov: Yes, yes. I want to say that you speak very enthusiastically and captivate me. I should probably say that, indeed, all these discussions about the presence of soil or stones, studying the inconsistencies in photographs from the Moon, remind me of a discussion about what we will carry in a car that we do not have. All the talk about the soil, about the Moon, about the quality of films about flights, makes sense only if we are absolutely sure that the Americans had a rocket capable of taking people to the Moon. I want to provide one more information. It dates back to 1959, when the Soviet Union first sent a spacecraft to the Moon. He had to reach the surface of Luni. On its board the rocket carried an automatic station that decided simple task- transmitted radio signals. So, the Soviet side, through the British, transferred to the Americans all the data on the trajectory of the launch vehicle, which launched the device into space. That is, NASA, the main US space organization, could completely control the flight of our rocket. But the Americans did not transmit the flight path of their Apollo rocket to the Soviet Union and did not transmit the frequencies of its transmitters.
Host: Do you mean that, despite the Cold War, there should have been good faith in the relations of the scientific world? And on the exploration of the Moon?
A.I. Popov: It seems to me that if the flights to the Moon were real, then the Americans should have transmitted the coordinates of the rocket route and radio frequencies to their rivals. So let's turn to this very rocket. To fly to the Moon, with the fuel that is on Earth and on which the “lunar” rocket worked - kerosene and liquid oxygen, the mass of the rocket had to be three thousand tons.
Host: So that she can take off and deliver the module to the Moon?
A.I. Popov: Yes, yes. The complex was supposed to go into orbit near the Moon, from which a special lunar module would then separate. This module was supposed to land on the Moon and then return to the space complex, which flies in orbit around the Moon. Then this complex launches towards Earth. Let's call this complex a “lunar ship.” So, such a ship should weigh forty to fifty tons. In 1967, NASA solemnly announced that such a lunar rocket had been created in America. It must be said that the design of the lunar rocket was entrusted to the outstanding German rocket scientist of those years, Wernher von Braun.
Presenter: A captured German.
A.I. Popov: Yes, exactly. This was the man who created the first V-2 ballistic missile, with which the Germans later bombed London. And then he was not yet thirty years old. And when captured by the Americans, he practically surrendered himself. This happened at the end of the war, in 1945. Wernher von Braun decided to surrender along with his colleagues - that's 500 specialists! Such prisoners were worth their weight in gold to the United States! And in For 25 years, von Braun was the chief rocket designer of the United States.
Host: To complete the picture, it must be said that the Soviet Union also captured a group of German scientists who worked with von Braun. But these were specialists of the wrong level who went to the Americans.
A.I. Popov: Absolutely right.
Host: German rocket scientists were afraid of the Red Army and preferred to surrender to the United States.
A.I. Popov: Absolutely right, this data came to us on a residual basis. Probably, those 500 specialists who left with von Braun for the USA were some of the best scientists. It turns out that we didn’t get the most important developers. Moreover, Wernher von Braun did not leave for America empty-handed. He took there one hundred ready-made V-2 missiles. The Soviet Union only got a few, but we managed to make the most of them. I can tell you one episode from the memories of an outstanding Soviet engine engineer Alexey Isaev. This is what he wrote about. One day I entered the hangar building where Soviet designers were studying the V-2. Sergey Korolev. He saw the legs of one of the engineers sticking out of the nozzle of this rocket. This was Alexey Isaev. Sergei Korolev called out to him and asked: “What are you doing there?” And Isaev answered him: “I am looking at something that cannot be done.” That's how far German technology is ahead of all other countries. But twenty-five years have passed, and I believe that Wernher von Braun failed in the task of creating a lunar rocket.
Host: What evidence is there that he failed?
A.I. Popov: This is what I want to talk about. Firstly, the rocket itself was presented to the general public. Here she is. A huge, hundred-meter building, approximately the height of a 35-story building. She had five huge engines, each of which was three times the height of a person... Now these missiles are not used anywhere, only a museum exhibit remains. Of course, such a scale impresses everyone. Each such engine produces 700 tons of thrust! And here I will talk about how specialists from the Soviet Baikonur Cosmodrome reacted to the events taking place in the United States during the preparation of the lunar program. Here is a photo of my friend, Nikolai Lebedev.
In the sixties of the last century it took place military service at the Baikonur training ground, and then for a long time was connected by the nature of his activity with work at the cosmodrome. And one day, he witnessed a very interesting conversation between three luminaries of Soviet rocketry. Talked Sergey Korolev– Chief designer of the rocket and space industry, Vladimir Chelomey- head of the design bureau for the creation of cruise missiles and Mstislav Keldysh- President of the USSR Academy of Sciences. They walked past Nikolai Lebedev and argued heatedly, not paying attention to anyone. And so Mstislav Keldysh said to Sergei Korolev: “ Look, it looks like von Braun will be able to do what he promised and the Americans will be the first on the moon." To which Sergei Korolev replied: “ Wernher von Braun decided to create an engine with 600-700 tons of thrust? Well, let him do it until he hits the wall. We've been through this before" The fact is that Wernher von Braun, in creating the engine, took the path of simply increasing its size. But very large engine chambers cannot work very well, since in this case the kerosene and oxygen do not mix well and explosions of clots begin inside...
Host: Because of the engine volume, do they mix poorly?
A.I. Popov: Yes, because of the volume. Explosions of kerosene clumps occur. For example, the Russian engines that we make and sell now have two combustion chambers and two nozzles. And there is only one engine.
Host: Do I understand correctly that Sergei Korolev tried to follow the path of increasing engine capacity, but did this cause the rockets to explode?
A.I. Popov: The engines exploded. And Sergei Korolev did not go further than creating large engines. He realized that increasing the size of the engine leads to a dead end. By the way, here is an example from modern times. I mean the launch of the relatively heavy Heavy Falcon rocket of the American Elon Musk. Installed on it 27 engines, but none of them are super powerful. Although purely mathematically, two or three F-1 rocket engines, allegedly created half a century ago by Wernher von Braun, could well lift Elon Musk’s rocket. Moreover, as Elon Musk himself admitted, it was difficult to synchronize the simultaneous operation of 27 engines.
Host: I wanted to add something to your words. It’s just that anyone can doubt the assessment of American achievements by Soviet scientists. “Soviet scientists showed skepticism,” such people will say, but the Americans succeeded and as a result they flew to the Moon! Therefore, I would give another example of a skeptical attitude towards the work of Americans. That is, not only the words of Sergei Korolev and Mstislav Keldysh. Everyone knows the stories of strange deaths those witnesses of work on the American lunar project who wanted to tell the truth. For example, he died tragically Thomas Baron, safety inspector at the construction of the Apollo complex. In April 1967, he spoke at the Congress and declared the complete unsuitability of the project, and the day after the speech, he, along with his wife and stepdaughter, died in a car accident. And in January 1967, during testing of the Apollo 1 spacecraft, three astronauts, led by Virgil Grissom.
A.I. Popov: Who dared to hang a lemon on the hull of the Apollo 1 spacecraft. And lemon is a sign of poor technique.
Presenter: A sign of bad technology. If I'm not mistaken, such open criticism was not welcomed on the Apollo project. Corporate solidarity was very strong and therefore criticism was not forgiven. Not Thomas Baron or anyone else. After all, they still say that the three Apollo 1 astronauts did not die as a result of an accident, it was a deliberate murder.
A.I. Popov: These were very bright, strong personalities. In the same 1967, after a fire during testing of Apollo 1, as far as I remember, five more astronauts died on Earth. Under a variety of circumstances in car and plane accidents.
Host: A total of ten people died.
A.I. Popov: Yes, yes. One year, 1967. Eight of them are astronauts. This is approximately 15-20% of the entire astronaut corps.
Host: I gave these examples to show that it was not only the Soviet Union that expressed skepticism about the Americans’ ability to fly to the Moon. The Americans themselves, even in reality top level There was a lot of doubt within NASA. In this regard, I have a question. Was the space race really so important in the Cold War that the Americans would take such a risk to broadcast a rocket launch live?! After all, the tests were not successful, people burned alive! Were the Americans really so short-sighted as to risk their image as a superpower like that?! After all, they could report a successful flight after the fact and show a recording of the launch. They really did risk a lot by planning the live broadcast. The lunar race was the main trump card in the field of space confrontation in " cold war" between Soviet Union and the United States of America. How do you explain this?
A.I. Popov: First of all, I want to say that after the flight Yuri Gagarin, May 25, 1961, President of the United States John Kennedy, breaking a long-standing tradition political life United States, delivered an address to Congress for the second time in a year, entitled “The Urgent Needs of the Nation.” In this message he said something like this: “ People all over the world look with enthusiasm at the successes of the Soviet Union in space. And America has not yet moved forward. And if the United States wants to win the battle for the minds of the peoples of the world, it must turn this situation around.” The New York Times commented: “The loser of this battle will face death and damnation.”».
Host: That is, the death of the system?
A.I. Popov: Yes. And let's now compare all this with what happened next. Did the USSR lose the “moon race” in the eyes of world public opinion? Lost! Did the collapse of the Soviet Union happen?
Host: Like the systems, right?
A.I. Popov: Exactly, as systems. This was one of the important factors.
Host: Do you mean the loss of faith that the USSR was always first in everything? Is this what you mean?
A.I. Popov: Yes. I'll tell you how it affected us - ordinary people. We lived much poorer than the Americans. And we all understood that we lived much poorer than in America. We just lived poorly. IN post-war years When the space industry and the nuclear program were developing, it was very difficult to live in the country. I remember how my mother, returning from work, had dinner with water with onions, sunflower oil and black bread. But she was a researcher. That is, everyone lived poorly.
But, if we knew that the first nuclear icebreaker was created in the USSR, that the first nuclear power plant was built by us, the first artificial Earth satellite was launched by the Soviet Union, then we felt like leaders of world progress. And we believed that sooner or later this progress would lead us to prosperity! There is a reason for it and, in the end, there will be a return. The time will come when we will live better. Therefore, both the USSR and the USA understood the importance of such global victories. And that’s why our victories inspired us so much. A The US victory in the lunar race killed the faith of our people in the capabilities of their country. And since then, no matter what they say about what wonderful airplanes we have, what great power plants we have, we were constantly reminded: “All this is true, but the Americans were able to fly to the Moon, and the USSR was not.” And what kind of people would want to live in a system that is worse structured?...
Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Alexander Popov
Host: But our previous successes in space projects played a big role. The prestige of the Soviet Union soared that even in the UN Security Council it was felt very well.
A.I. Popov: Absolutely right. Yes.
Host: Why did I focus on this fact? Because many people underestimate how important this lunar race was. In practice, this was the number one issue in the competition between the two world systems. And the Americans understood perfectly well that if the Soviet Union also landed on the Moon first, then this would no longer be a knockdown, but a knockout of the entire American system.
A.I. Popov: Yes! And you were right to mention the UN Security Council. I want to remind you of the fact that during the times of our space victories, before 1969, at meetings of the UN General Assembly, this situation was repeated more than once or twice. If any Resolution was submitted for discussion by the Soviet Union, then all members of the General Assembly voted for it, except USA. That is, the United States found itself completely alone. Only occasionally did he join them Israel. Thus, our success also influenced politics. This is how success is reflected in technical progress!
Host: Okay. Alexander Ivanovich, thank you very much, I hope you will still have time to talk with us and continue studying the topic of whether or not Americans were on the Moon. Thank you very much.
A.I. Popov: Thank you for your attention. I think that our meeting will take place. Goodbye.
David Gelernter on the Moon
About the “flights” of Americans to the Moon and Nikolai Levashov’s opinion about it
Interview with A.I. Popov for Russia Today Arabic (1st broadcast)
More details and a variety of information about events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet Conferences, constantly held on the website “Keys of Knowledge”. All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite everyone who wakes up and is interested...
10.10.2013 21:57:16
Review: positive
Have Americans been to the moon? Not only were they, but they actually saw “something” that seemed to serve as a prototype for the film Apollo 18. And the connection of my message with the topic is that the results were, as it were, classified. No, the archives are freely available, there are no restrictions, but the results upon careful examination of the photographs are very, very strange, and I can assume that special American religiosity played a role here.
All this is no joke, there is no doubt that the flights took place, but if you look through the archives, the result is extremely unexpected. By the way, the NASA archive is very extensive and it’s not easy to understand it! However, if you have time, check out these links. The topic was chosen on purpose, on the one hand it’s lively, and on the other hand we don’t bother anyone too much.
So.
- Have you seen the film? Now look at the lunar photographs.
Diplodocus
photo fragment
http://www.yugzone.ru/articles/pic/luna2/image059.jpg
Photo from NASA archives
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22561HR.jpg
(by changing the last digit of the address, you can look around the area that is nearby, for example, changing 22561 to 22562 or changing 2 to 3, 4.5, etc., leaving the rest of the address the same, removing the letters HR at the end of the address, you will switch to economy mode , the photo will open 7-8 times faster.)
It is not the question that is alarming, but a completely different circumstance! Aggressive propaganda of ignorance and a ban on other opinions, even if they are based on NASA documents.
I looked through many forums on the topic “fly or not fly,” and here’s the thing: the number of participants in the discussion, as well as the number of similar forums, is very large. But...
- So what?
Yes, the fact is that I am interested in Space and the Moon, Mars in particular, and being curious, I looked through all the photographs of Apollos 11-17. I looked at almost everything, but many thousands of photographs many times, not alone, but in a group. Opinions immediately differed - literally to the point of hysteria. And so...
- AND.
I can tell everyone - with the most pleasant news, NASA astronauts not only flew, but also filmed something unimaginable, extremely unusual and even unnatural, so strange on the Moon - that all sorts of “saucers” are just a trifle.
Now I will tell you the essence of my observation, in detail.
So, our and my personal conclusion is that there is something similar to life on the Moon. And these are not vague objects somewhere in the distance, similar to a UFO, but filmed point-blank from a very short distance and directly examined by astronauts using a hammer. And if we are careful, then this is “something” analogous to a “specifically organized substance” or, if put differently, then some semblance of an unknown vacuum form of life or, non-protein life, or life existing using dry electrolysis under lunar conditions. But completely different, not like us.
Now, once again in order, NASA astronauts on each mission saw traces and stones that left these traces, moreover, even before the first landing on the Moon, in the photographs taken by the Orbiter series satellites, all the experts who developed the program for researching the lunar surface saw these same footprints, they sat down next to them in order to see what kind of crawling stones they were. That is, from the photographs it was clear that the landing area was dotted with traces of crawling stones, up and down the slope of the hills or the slope of the crater, and it was in such a place that the Apollos landed on the Moon, starting with Armstrong.
Therefore, in all expeditions, but especially with the advent of the lunar vehicle, - Apollo 15-16-17, after installing the flag and instruments, - the astronauts rode and followed the tracks and photographed these very strange tracks and, the stones that left them, took pictures of them and TV, discussed with Houston what they looked like, took samples, turned them over and then went to the same next boulder. And even Armstrong’s first phrase was not about “a small step” but about these same countless traces. Only he said it earlier before exiting the landing module, leaning out into the open observation hatch and examining the surroundings, and the phrase sounded something like this: “who inherited the surface of my Moon.”
A few first photos from the LM window, Apollo 11.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-39-5768HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-39-5769HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-39-5770HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-39-5774HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-39-5793HR.jpg
(you can view more by changing the last digit)
A description of the surface of the Moon is in the NASA transcript and can be listened to in the NASA archive. Actually, all the transcripts contain a discussion of the traces of stones, this is about all the Apolo missions. After Armstrong’s phrase, the Soviet specialists in the USSR at the MCC were literally speechless with surprise. Until now, many of them are nostalgic, remembering the tragicomic space race and presenting Armstrong’s words literally as traces of people - as real traces of our Soviet cosmonauts who in some unknown way were ahead of NASA, and who seemed to fall into Armstrong’s field of vision. Now let’s wipe away our tears of tenderness and continue in order about the strange stones that remained on the Moon and the stones brought to Earth. I emphasize that this is not made up, below are links to the archives.
It’s just that our famous “Pathfinders and Connoisseurs and Experts” inattentively looked through NASA archives, inattentively listened to voices and inattentively read transcripts of negotiations. If you read carefully, it would be impossible to pass by the stones that left traces! Astronauts have been exploring them from the very beginning! 90% of the time of the Apollo 15-17 expeditions was devoted to the chains of tracks and the stones themselves. And in earlier expeditions at least half the time. On the hillsides there were many traces of sliding stones or marks left by bouncing fragments of meteorites. But we are not talking about them here; the astronauts studied the “chains of traces” left by limbs when walking! It was the marks in the form of “chains of similar rounded dents” that attracted their attention. The tracks stretched for many kilometers - there were not always stones at the end of the track, sometimes there were, sometimes not. And the size of the footprint did not always correspond to the size of the stone, and, in terms of the width of the step and the size of the imprint. But this is a separate conversation - in short, during landing, 8 tons of fuel are burned, and this, most likely, was the reason for the complete immobility of the studied stones. They were simply poisoned with engine gas. Vacuum life, by its nature, does not breathe, but since the stones are porous, it is extremely vulnerable to poisonous gases, gases are a nuisance on Earth, but on the Moon the stones are soft, friable with a porous shell and an internal spongy filling. They do not have dense, continuous skin, like animals on Earth, and gases, easily penetrating inside, entered unnecessary chemical bonds, and then as on Ypres or on the Seine. Although at first, when writing the first article, we all assumed that the stones did not have time to thaw after a long night. The astronauts arrived early in the morning, and the night on the moon is cold -170C and lasts two weeks. But the stones or boulders left their last steps in life as if running; most likely they were not sleeping, but had long since woken up and, sensing the gas from the approaching apparatus, which was obviously at least 5-10 minutes ahead of the approach of the ship, they tried to escape. The delivered stones were cut and polished on Earth, and it turned out that the moon stones were porous! For us on the Moon it is a vacuum, but for them the atmosphere, albeit rarefied, is an atmosphere, and gas is gas. It’s clear that they don’t breathe, but the porous surface allows gases to pass inside, and their delicate nature is by no means designed for this. However, all this is in the original article. Isn't this more interesting than a UFO?
In photographs of astronauts there are many different stones of incomprehensible type,
http://www.yugzone.ru/articles/pic/luna/image006.jpg
Two strange-looking stones, approximately 3-4 meters high; below there are links to the NASA archive, where clearer photographs are available.
There are a lot of photos, however, we didn’t chase the quantity.
NASA archive, there are photos, transcripts of negotiations, videos shot with a television camera.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17.html
PS I won’t answer questions if you have angry visitors here, the material is interesting, but few people know it. For example, who knows - that the USSR program of flights to the Moon, the so-called N-1 project, was designed for one flight, two cosmonauts and that’s it. One would have to remain in orbit, one would have to go down to the surface of the Moon, he would not have a camera with him, and he would also not be able to take the soil, since he would return through outer space by jump. The astronaut had to land automatically on a radio beacon near Lunokhod-1, which, with its onboard TV camera, recorded his arrival and exit to the surface of the Moon. And this is the entire scientific part, which cost the taxpayers of the USSR no less than the annual budget of Belarus. Then the cosmonaut (Bykovsky) would return to the rocket and depart for orbit. In the same way - automatically to the radio beacon, since the device did not have a radar, then it would approach the lunar station, and then the most dangerous thing - a jump through outer space - possibly from a very long distance.
Only 1 cosmonaut was supposed to stay on the surface of the Moon for 1 hour and that’s it, no soil, no photographs, all this was supposed to be delivered by automatic machines. Moreover, there were many other interesting things, for example, if his rocket had failed on the surface, then the cosmonaut (Bykovsky) would have moved on the Lunokhod to a spare rocket (which should have landed in advance in the same place next to the Lunokhod), for this there was a reserve on the Lunokhod oxygen and connection to a power source, in front there is a special step and a control panel - like a car. And to return to the orbital station, the astronaut would have to hover as close as possible but at a safe distance and throw a long flyer, cable or slings and get hooked, then move along them through outer space, the distance could be decent (this moment was played out in the American film of the flight to Mars, they borrowed the plot from us! Have you seen how quickly Bykovsky could return to the station? Here, here - an extremely scientific epic, for all subsequent generations and -). So, we had our own numerous adventures, no worse than the American ones, but our own (believe me, we wouldn’t hit our faces in the dirt! By the way, about “dirt”, NASA astronauts ate it when they returned to the LM, cleaned their spacesuits , shoes, and tasted it, in their words - you can eat it, it resembles chocolate with gunpowder, this food even caused allergies in some).
Therefore, it is impossible to compare the projects of the USSR and NASA, like a Soviet or Russian cosmonaut will fly and figure it out, otherwise he will have something on his mind to think about the traces of stones, the projects for studying the moon are completely different. Even if the cosmonauts of the USSR had flown, or the Russian one in our time, even successfully, very, very productively, then neither the first nor the second would have added anything new to science. And, being the second on the Moon in our time is even more of a miracle than being the first forty years ago! Look at the photographs and you will understand why; first you need to change your worldview. This means that any statement about comparing our missions with theirs - before and after - does not work. There is no need to compare anything, you have to do it yourself - look at the photographs taken by NASA astronauts and carefully study that there is no one else in them but you and me.
Evgeniya Golub Saturday September 2013
Alexander Popov
brief information
Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences (specialization - laser optics and spectroscopy), graduate of MEPhI veteran, inventor. Lately he has been a school teacher. Author of the book “Man on the Moon. Great breakthrough or space scam? "[,].
Topics related to Popov
Popov as a debunker of Apollo
Articles in the newspaper “Duel” and “To the Barrier”
For the first time, Popov made a refutation of the Apollo program on the pages of the newspaper, the editor of the newspaper "Duel", edited by Yu. I. Mukhin. The first publication dates back to 2004 [, ]. In the first part of the article, claims are made against the Saturn 5 rocket, in the second - Al Reinert’s film “For All Mankind”. Early next year another article appeared in the same newspaper [, ]. In the first part, Popov presents a list of evidence that, in his opinion, should be presented based on the results of the first flight of the Moon by people in the Apollo 8 expedition; in the second, he analyzes footage of the launch from the Moon of the take-off stage of the lunar module and comes to the conclusion that the launch falsified.
The materials from these articles, expanded and revised, were then included in the book “Man on the Moon? What evidence? "
Popov later published in Mukhin’s newspaper “To the Barrier,” which replaced “Duel” after its closure.
The book “Americans on the Moon. Great breakthrough or space scam?
<…>Imagine that in hard days In the summer and autumn of 1941, a representative German colonel arrives in Moscow with the permission of the Soviet government to talk in detail about how successfully the German army is crushing the Soviet one. Would this help raise the morale of our commanders, soldiers and the entire people? It is not difficult to imagine the powerful demoralizing effect of Bormann's visit on Soviet specialists. What was the Secretary for Ideology M.A. Suslov guided by when he gave permission for this visit?
Four stations destroyed during launch
<…>If during the first 7 launches there was only 1 accident, then in the last six launches the accident rate reached 100%, that is, it increased 6 times. But is it really true that technological process violations have become 6 times more frequent at factories and the discipline and qualifications of workers have fallen just as catastrophically? Rather, someone’s malicious intent intervened in the second series of tests.<…>if evil spirits could, as A. A. Leonov is convinced, slip the wrong plug into the fuel path of the Proton rocket, then why should its attention to N1 be excluded?<…>A. A. Leonov’s confidence in sabotage against “Protons” seems even more justified<…>
Thus, Popov’s conclusion is completely clear:
In general, we can conclude that in the top Soviet leadership and in high scientific fields at the time of the lunar race, there already existed influential forces for which a US victory in the lunar race was not such a frightening prospect. And they made decisions that helped this victory.
Popov is confident that the Soviet leadership and senior scientific circles were aware of the “conspiracy.” However, Popov, unlike Mukhin, has not yet written about the motives for the USSR’s complicity in the conspiracy:
<…>The top of the Soviet political leadership and the leaders of the USSR Academy of Sciences apparently understood what was happening under the guise of flights to the Moon. This understanding has become the subject of some kind of political bargaining<…>Discussion of specific motives and stakes in the said trade is beyond the scope of this article.
Popov's approach to evidence
Popov is convinced that the United States is still obliged to prove the reality of the Apollo program:
The reliability of a scientific discovery (manned flights to the Moon) is proven by its author (USA) and those who share his point of view (advocates). Many readers are familiar with such concepts as “defense of a diploma project”, “defense of a dissertation”. The very word “defense” (and not presentation, publication, etc.) reminds us that the author of a new scientific result has the responsibility to defend it in a scientific discussion. From whom to protect? From the skeptics. And the role of skeptics is played by other scientists and specialists who, with their questions and doubts, check the information of the defender for logic, consistency and scientific reliability. So the job of the skeptic is to ask questions, and the job of the author of the discovery is to defend himself. And it never happens the other way around - for a scientific speaker to “examine” his listeners. Understanding this point is very important to understanding the purpose and logic of this entire book. The fact is that in the course of numerous discussions about flights to the Moon, one often hears how “defenders” of NASA say to “skeptics”: “And you can prove that the Americans were not on the Moon!” Thus, the accepted order of scientific discussions is turned upside down.
Therefore, this book is structured in such a way that questions are mainly “accepted” from skeptics, and answers are “accepted” from defenders. And if the answers to the questions turn out to be generally unsatisfactory, then they say that “the defense has failed.” And no one is obliged to prove that the Americans were not on the Moon.
(Author’s emphasis.) At the same time, Popov, firstly, commits a direct fraud: manned flights to the Moon are not scientific discovery, neither a graduation project nor a dissertation; The Apollo program is a scientific and technological achievement, and scientific and technological achievements are considered accomplished without any protection unless they are recognized by a competent community and unless they are proven to be falsified. All established practice speaks of this, and Popov cannot help but know this. No one assembled any commission before which the USSR would defend the flight of Gagarin, the flight of Buran, etc. Neither the USA nor the USSR defended the flights of their automatic interplanetary stations to anyone: never in history cosmic achievement I didn’t defend myself to anyone. Only those who are convinced of falsification can act as provers: they will have to prove that the Soviet Venus or American Voyagers were falsifications if they want to doubt the reality of these space achievements.
Secondly, Popov completely ignores the fact that the reality of the Apollo program, in fact, has long been proven at all levels: this program has long been included in textbooks, including school textbooks, in encyclopedias, and in reference books. The technology of the Apollo program is studied in specialized universities, and scientific results programs formed the basis for a number of sciences - planetology, selenology, etc. Therefore, demands to repeatedly prove what formed the basis of generally accepted knowledge look quite ridiculous. To whom to prove? Specialists in the field of astronautics, history of technology, selenology? They don't ask to have something proven to them over and over again. Personally to Popov and his supporters? No one is obliged to prove anything to Popov. Popov can doubt anything, even that Antarctica exists - but Popov’s doubts do not impose any obligations on geographers: no one is obliged to answer his, Popov’s, questions, and declarations “the defense (of the existence of Antarctica) has failed” will be perceived as reason to doubt its adequacy. Demands to prove the reality of the Apollo program over and over again are akin to demands to prove that Antarctica exists or that the Earth is not square.
We can conclude that Popov’s demands contradict both the established practice of recognizing technical and scientific achievements, and common sense. From a legal point of view, they are also untenable.
Popov's approach to information sources
Popov usually provides his works with a large number of references, trying to give the impression of serious research (this applies to both his books and individual articles). But solid links Popov’s are mixed with references to sources like the magazine “Murzilka”, or worse. Moreover, it is often on such references that Popov bases far-reaching conclusions. But he also prefers to interpret references to reputable sources creatively. Besides, Popov regularly manipulates links(for example, attributes references to NASA that do not apply to NASA), and manipulates quotes(for example, manipulates dates and takes quotes out of context, rearranges later quotes ahead of earlier ones, completely distorting the time at This sequence of events gives a truncated or simply incorrect translation).
Illiteracy
Despite his academic title, Popov regularly bases his conclusions on trivial mistakes, which he manages to make even where his education, it would seem, should help him. Thus, Popov does not know how perspective works, is not aware of the features of the polar orbit, and is not able to correlate the satellite’s orbital period with the planet’s rotation period.
14. “The agreement between the USSR and the USA on the Moon is becoming obvious”
15. “The USSR is helping the United States win the lunar race,” Popov’s article about the Soviet Union’s “concealment” of the supposedly fake Apollo capsule it found.
A preliminary (electronic) version of the future book has appeared, entitled “Man on the Moon? What evidence?” On various Internet forums, Popov’s co-authors called for a critical discussion of the book [, ]. This preliminary version is still available on a number of sites [,]. In 2009, a revised and expanded version of the book was published (in paper form) by the Veche publishing house under the title “Americans on the Moon. Great breakthrough or space scam? [, ]. The circulation was 5000 copies, the price in different stores was ~350-500 rubles.
Author's approach
In the introduction to the book, Popov tries to convince the reader that the United States is still obliged to prove the reality of the Apollo program:
Proving the authenticity of any achievement is the sole responsibility of the author. Therefore, the statement “Americans were on the Moon” must be defended by the Americans themselves. No one is obliged to prove that the Americans were not on the Moon.
<…>Unfortunately, quite often one hears NASA “defenders” say: “You can prove that the Americans were not on the Moon!” Thus, the accepted order is turned upside down.
The very title of the original version (“Man on the Moon? What evidence?”) indicated this approach.
Popov is silent about the fact that never in history has a single space achievement (as well as other technical achievements) been defended before anyone, be it Gagarin’s flight, Leonov’s spacewalk, or flights of automatic interplanetary stations. Only those who are convinced of the scam can act as provers: they are the ones who will have to prove that space program was falsified.
Popov also keeps silent that the reality of the Apollo program has long been proven to the competent community: its description has long been included in textbooks, including school textbooks, in encyclopedias, and in reference books. The technology of the Apollo program is studied in specialized universities, and the scientific results of the program formed the basis for a number of sciences, technical and astronomical (for example, selenology). The demands to re-prove what formed the basis of generally accepted knowledge are similar to the demands to prove the reality of the Mars interplanetary stations or the existence of Antarctica.
The “accepted order” mentioned by Popov is actually this: anyone who claims to refute generally accepted facts included in the textbook and which form the basis of a number of areas of knowledge must provide evidence of his rightness - if, of course, he wants his views to be reflected in textbooks. No one is even obliged to respond to demands to prove again and again Gagarin’s flight, the visits of automatic probes to distant planets, and no one is obliged to prove again and again the reality of human flights to the Moon.
Co-authors
In the chapter “Leading” Popov expresses gratitude a large number people, and “he considers them his co-authors, and saw his role in writing the book in the systematization of relevant ideas and facts”. Popov does not forget to emphasize the ranks and titles of some of his “co-authors”:
Abramov I. V., Alekseeva L. A., Golubev V. N., Grebenshchikov D. V., Danilychev N. N., Dobrokhotova A. V., Ermolovich L. M., Zhukov I. M., Karavaev E. V., Associate Professor, Ph.D. G. I. Kozin, Kozlov N. I., Kopeikin A. V., Krivenko O. V., Kuksenkov V. A. and E. Yu., prof., Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences. Kuimov K.V., Art. n. s., Ph.D. Kucherenko A. A., Kucheryavyi A. V., Associate Professor, Ph.D. A. I. Lukovnikov, A. E. Nikolsky, prof., Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Novik V.K., Orlov M.Yu., Perov V.V., Pospelov D.V., Ph.D. Pokrovsky S. G., Popova E. A., Honored Tester of Space Technology, Lieutenant General Semenov V. V., group of leading specialists of the Rocket and Space Corporation "Machine Building", Sokolov Yu. R., Art. n. s., Ph.D. Tarasov N. N., Associate Professor, Ph.D. Tikhomirov G.V., Tokarev O.P., Udaltsov R.V., captain 1st rank Filatov V.A., Ph.D. Kharitonov A. M., Ph.D. Kharchenkov A. M., Kharchenkov D. A. and Kharchenkova M. V., prof., doctor of physical and mathematical sciences. A. A. Chistyakov, A. V. Chichvarin, general designer of the Almaz orbital station, A. I. Einis, N. V. Yakutin.
This list is intended to give the impression of solidity: since a whole a group of leading specialists from the Rocket and Space Corporation "Mashinostroyeniye" together with Popov exposes the moon landings, then the author’s cause is clearly right! However, it is easy to check that Rocket and Space Corporation "Machine Building" does not exist in nature. However, in an article subsequently published on Popov’s website, he refers to the story of a certain former leading specialist “ "Machine Building" company (Reutovo)"(about the reference to this remarkable character, signed only as " His Serene Highness Prince Russian Empire Vladimir Rodionov", Can ). Although there is no Mashinostroenie company in the city of Reutovo (as well as the city of Reutovo itself), there is a military-industrial corporation NPO Mashinostroeniya in the city of Reutov. Therefore, it can be assumed with some stretch that Popov twice mixed up the name of the enterprise where his co-authors are located, and once mixed up the name of the city where this enterprise itself is located.
Name General designer of the Almaz orbital station should also make an impression, but the general designer of OKB-52, which developed Almaz, was the famous V.N. Chelomey, and the theme of the station was headed by V.A. Polyachenko. A. I. Eidis(Popov got his last name mixed up) was Chelomey’s deputy. Obviously, Popov had never seen this man and mentioned him for company - otherwise it is unlikely that he would have managed to confuse not only his position, but also his last name.
Also mentioned “Honored Tester of Space Technology, Lieutenant General Semenov V.V.” About him in Chapter 21 Popov writes:
In November 2004, the author addressed a corresponding question to a competent contemporary of those events - Lieutenant General, Honored Tester of Space Technology, and at that time Assistant to the Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Missile Forces of the USSR Ministry of Defense V.V. Semenov. His answer was brief in military terms: “Data According to telemetry, there are no Apollo flights.”
However, we know nothing about such a person. Closest to the mysterious “Lieutenant General V.V. Semenov” stands A.I. Semenov, who had very similar regalia:
“SEMENOV Anatoly Ivanovich (1908-1973) Lieutenant General, Hero of Socialism. Labor (1961). Graduated from Art. acad. (1937). From 1941 he served in Chief. art. management of the Red Army, head. department, one of the organizers of the production of combat vehicles and ammunition for guards mortar units (Katyusha). Since 1954 deputy artillery commander Ground Forces By missile weapons. In 1960-64 beginning. GU missile forces USSR Ministry of Defense. Since 1964 member of the Scientific and Technical Institute. General Staff Committee on Missile Launches. Laureate Art. Ave. (1943). In reserve since 1970.”
But it is unlikely that Popov could have called A. I. Semenov, who died twenty-one years earlier, in 2004...
However, the quote itself from Popov’s book shows whom Popov is in a hurry to sign him up as a co-author: apparently, all a person needs to do is answer Popov’s phone call for him to sign him up as a co-author of his work. This is confirmed by the words of a person who has common friends with Popov:
Karev1: By the way, Nikomo also knows Popov, although not personally. And he advised his book. A.I. even wanted (according to Nikomo) to express gratitude to him in the book.
Nikomo: I know, I know, but I didn’t consult his book. For some reason, he perceived the fact that I began to give him calculations and information that refuted his book as some kind of “consultation,” which actually surprised me.<…>But about those to whom A.I. Popov wrote thanks in his book, I think that some of these people (I don’t know how many) have nothing to do with this book at all. For example, he wrote down my friends who communicated with him there, although they did not participate in the creation of this book in any way. Did he do it for mass appeal or to create the appearance of how many people took part?
So one might think that some of the people whom Popov listed as his co-authors (especially those with big names and titles) do not exist at all, while the other part is very far from Popov’s views, and their “participation” consisted in criticizing his arguments. However, Popov also made a reservation on this score:
Sources
Popov provides each chapter of the book with a large number of references, trying to give the impression of serious research. But Popov’s solid references are mixed with references to sources like the Murzilka magazine, or worse. Moreover, it is often on such references that Popov bases far-reaching conclusions.
For example, right in the Introduction, Popov gives a large quote from the Internet publication CNews. This article accuses not NASA of 40 years ago of falsification, but the modern European Space Agency and its Smart 1 lunar probe. The quote, like most CNews materials on the “lunar” topic, is full of untruths and fraud:
As ESA Leading Scientist Bernard Foing has previously bluntly stated, one of the main tasks was to photograph the landing sites of the American manned Apollo missions.<…>It was assumed that it would be possible to detect traces of the transporter on which (the astronauts) carried out, according to NASA, many kilometers of raids. Optimism was also added by the fact that almost simultaneously the Mars Global Surveyor difficult conditions From orbit, it was possible to detect probes that landed on Mars.
Bernard Foing did not and could not claim that photographing the Apollo landing sites was one of the main objectives; traces of the “transporter” in the Smart-1 images could not be detected in principle (due to the low resolution of its cameras); comparison with the Mars Global Surveyor is absolutely incorrect, since the resolution of the Mars probe’s cameras is much higher. The CNews writings dedicated to Smart-1 were disavowed in detail in the Cosmonautics News magazine.
- Popov shamelessly uses unreliable sources to support his opinion.
- Popov willingly extracts information from unreliable sources as long as the information fits his theories; fraud and outright lies in these sources do not bother Popov.
- Popov is not looking for original sources - why, if there is a retelling, even if full of lies and fraud?
- When choosing between an unreliable source and an official one, Popov chooses the unreliable one if only it is more suitable for his theories; Popov will even defend his right to make such a choice, since, they say, an official source may write lies, and the one he likes may have information inaccessible to others.
- When translating foreign-language sources, Popov may distort the translation and may omit an important part from it.
- While correcting some errors in unreliable sources, Popov introduces new errors.
- Popov passes off some sources as others; he can pass off a private site as a NASA site, an independent producer's film as a NASA film, a distorted retelling as an official one.
Illiteracy
Despite his academic title, Popov regularly bases his conclusions on trivial errors. Thus, Popov tries to challenge the role of perspective in the divergence of shadows - but he does not know how perspective works. Popov devotes many pages to the “research” of photo retouching - but he is not aware of either the tasks or methods of digital retouching; as a result, he does not see retouching where it exists, and if he discovers it, he produces absolutely fantastic theories.
Popov makes gross mistakes in elementary things within the first years of university. He is not aware of the peculiarities of the polar orbit and is not able to correlate the period of revolution of the satellite with the period of rotation of the planet.
The history of astronautics, easily verifiable facts - all this is alien to Popov.
1. A.I. Popov, “Americans on the Moon. Great breakthrough or space scam?”, ed. "Veche", 2009